The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for content, yet it has lived longer than most of these cheesy "moderated" products that seek to impose their morality on you.
It looks like you're getting downvoted, but I think this is a good point and worth thinking about.
I believe one key difference here is group identity perception. If you like thinking in business terms, you could say "branding".
Facebook, Reddit, HN, Twitter, etc. all must care about content moderation because there is a feedback loop they have to worry about:
1. Toxic content gets posted.
2. Users who dislike that content see it and associate it with the site. They stop using it.
3. The relative fraction of users not posting toxic content goes down.
4. Go to 1.
Run several iterations of that and if you aren't careful, your "free" site is now completely overrun and forever associated with one specific subculture. Tumblr -> porn, Voat -> right-wing extremism, etc.
Step 2 is the key step here. If a user sees some content they don't like and associates it with the entire site it can tilt the userbase.
The web as a whole avoids that because "the web" is not a single group or brand in the minds of most users. When someone sees something horrible on the web, they think "this site sucks" not "the web sucks".
Reddit is an interesting example of trying to thread that needle with subreddits. As far as I can tell, Reddit as a whole isn't strongly associated with porn, but there are a lot of pornographic subreddits. During the Trump years, it did get a lot of press and negative attention around right-wing extremism because of The_Donald and other similar subreddits, but it has been able to survive that better than other apps like Gab or Voat.
There are still many many thriving, wholesome, positive communities on Reddit. So, if there is a takeaway, it might be to preemptively silo and partition your communities so that a toxic one doesn't take down others with it.
I personally see it as "plausible deniability" as the cynical actual distinction for what gets people to share blame. Not actual affiliations or whose servers it is run on. Any number of objectionable sites are run on AWS and you basically need to be an international scandal or violating preexisting terms to get booted. Like some malware to governments merchants. Amazon's policies did not care if it was legal just if you were doing so unauthorized. A wise move when international law is really like the Pirate code.
The interlinking between the pages themselves and common branding are what creates the associations. Distributed twitter alternatives like Mastodon can even share the same branding but it is on a per network basis and complex enough to allow for some "innocent" questionable connections.
The internet is very moderated, on the contrary, in terms of UGC.
Traditional, non-social, websites have single or known-group authors. When one of them is defaced or modified we call it "hacking" not "unmoderated content." We assume NASA's site has NASA-posted content. We assume Apple's site has Apple-posted content.
Sites with different standards for what they'd publish have been around for decades (for gore, for porn, etc) but many of these still exist in a traditional curated-by-someone fashion, or are more open to UGC but still have some level of moderation.
The internet is not moderated in any useful sense for content. Drug markets like white house market, and before that silk road have perpetuated for years. Tor and other darknet websites host content that is nearly universally disdained by governments and even most individuals, which I hesitate to even name here what that heinous content is (you and I both know some examples).
> We assume NASA's site has NASA-posted content. We assume Apple's site has Apple-posted content.
Trust in identity is not the same thing as useful moderation of content. That's useful moderation of identity.
>Sites with different standards for what they'd publish have been around for decades (for gore, for porn, etc) but many of these still exist in a traditional curated-by-someone fashion, or are more open to UGC but still have some level of moderation.
Those sites _choose_ to moderate their content, that doesn't exclude others that don't.
>The internet is not moderated in any useful sense for content. Drug markets like white house market, and before that silk road...
You mean the Silk Road that the US government "moderated" out of existence, along with other Tor marketplaces over the years? The same ones that suggest White House Market's existence is also likely to be limited?
I suppose in the sense that Gabby Pettito was moderated off the internet, Ross Ulbricht was moderated off of the internet and into a cage permanently for the heinous crime of facilitating voluntarily peaceful trade. Tor marketplaces were definitely not gone for years, the same content just moved under new banners. You can literally find the same content and more on WHM today as you did under Ulbricht's banner before he was kidnapped by government thugs.
>I suppose in the sense that Gabby Pettito was moderated off the internet, Ross Ulbricht was moderated off of the internet and into a cage permanently for the heinous crime of facilitating voluntarily peaceful trade.
Oh hello, strawman.
>Tor marketplaces were definitely not gone for years, the same content just moved under new banners. You can literally find the same content and more on WHM today as you did under Ulbricht's banner before he was kidnapped by government thugs.
And the only reason that happens is by virtue of Tor making it difficult to track the source of those sites and their operators. That doesn't mean that "moderators" (governments, etc.) aren't putting forth their best efforts to track them down and shut them down. It is nearly inevitable that WHM will see a similar fate to Silk Road, AlphaBay, DarkMarket, etc.. They're being shut down as quickly as they can be.
Glad to know you finally admit that being kidnapped by a 3rd party is not really what most of us think as "moderation", and thus you have made a straw man. Although in the strict sense I guess it is true that moderation could merely mean some 3rd party entity came along and violently kept me away from communicating. If you don't like me posting cat pictures on reddit, you could crack my skull or lock me in a cage and steal my PC and you would have "moderated" me but I wouldn't call that reddit moderation.
... wow. Talk about going from 0-100 entirely too fast.
I was talking specifically about sites such as Silk Road and others being taken offline (which is exactly what you were talking about, too), not once did I mention his arrest nor did I allude to it. Glancing at your username, I seem to recall previous comments from you in threads about drug use being legalized. On the broad topic of drug legalization - again - you and I agree, but you would do well to prevent your biases from creeping in and causing you to misunderstand posts and/or lash out at others.
I apologize, maybe you are not familiar with the details of the silk road. Ross Ulbricht was the administrator and creator of the silk road, allegedly. It's quite probable that without his arrest, it would have persisted even if on newly acquired hardware. I would argue his arrest was integral in these violent thugs "moderating" silk road away like the mob "moderates" away their competition.
Instead, after his arrest the content ended up on new platforms rather than the Silk Road platform.
> biases from creeping in and causing you to misunderstand posts and/or lash out at others.
Yes my bias is in complete, unrestricted free speech. Every single piece of content, regardless of how damaging or vulgar anyone thinks it is and regardless of if it portrays even the worst of crimes. I admit I am colored by that bias.
> lash out at others.
What are you talking about? You feel attacked because your poorly constructed argument was laid open. Your case is pretty clear. Even if the system of the internet has no useful filter of content (whether that is true or not), if a third party such as DEA comes along and decides to seize equipment and throw the operator in jail, you consider that content moderation. And I'm willing to admit from a practical perspective, that could be considered a form of moderation by a violent third party.
---------------
Edit due to waiting on timeout to reply below:
His arrest is hand and hand with the shutdown. It was integral. You can't say you weren't mentioning Ulbricht's arrest when that arrest WAS, in part, the takedown of Silk Road. The very fact that you said you weren't speaking of the arrest lead me to say you "may not be familiar" (note the uncertain words, that your bias clouds you from understanding did not speak in certainties.)
>s, and then angrily respond to them as such.
I think you're projecting. If there's any anger, it must be yours.
>Yeah, again, you're injecting your own biases as you create assumptions about my comments
Your comment appeared to be a rebuttal to my statement that "The internet itself is unmoderated in any useful sense for conten." If it wasn't actually a rebuttal but actually an agreement, I apologize for misunderstanding you were actually supporting that argument.
>See how I used "moderated" in quotes in my very first response? That suggests that I'm using the term rather loosely.
>If something's illegal - even if you and I think it shouldn't be - then it's typically going to be removed at some point, even if it takes a while because something like Tor makes it difficult. And in that sense, yes, the internet is "moderated" for that content. That's all I've said/argued, and I truly don't understand how that is so difficult for you to grasp.
The illegal content has only progressively proliferated since the advent of the internet, and we've yet to see an effective mechanism to moderate the content of the internet as a whole. Virtually every category of content has not only not been removed but increased.
>That's all I've said/argued, and I truly don't understand how that is so difficult for you to grasp.
Yes and I'm arguing that this is incorrect, it hasn't been moderated. At best it has passed from platform from platform but no effective mechanism has managed to censor the internet as a whole.
Sometimes I wonder with all this speak of anger, misinterpretations, and clouded judgement is just you repeating to me what your own psychologist told you.
Yeah, again, you're injecting your own biases as you create assumptions about my comments, rather than stopping to ask what I mean before you fly off the handle. See how I used "moderated" in quotes in my very first response? That suggests that I'm using the term rather loosely.
All I've said was that that's how illegal content is moderated on the internet - it is removed. Silk Road was removed, AlphaBay was removed, DarkMarket was removed, many others have been removed, and many more will continue to be removed even if Tor makes that a slow process. At no point did I bring up whether or not I thought it was "right" to remove them, or to treat Ulbricht in that manner (again, you're assuming I don't know what happened). I said "moderating" with quotes, for lack of a better word.
If something's illegal - even if you and I think it shouldn't be - then it's typically going to be removed at some point, even if it takes a while because something like Tor makes it difficult. And in that sense, yes, the internet is "moderated" for that content. That's all I've said/argued, and I truly don't understand how that is so difficult for you to grasp.
>It's quite probable that without his arrest, it would have persisted even if on newly acquired hardware. ... Instead, after his arrest the content ended up on new platforms rather than the Silk Road platform.
For implying that I don't know what happened, you seem to be forgetting that other Silk Road staff started Silk Road 2.0 after his arrest, but that was also shut down.
>What are you talking about? You feel attacked because your poorly constructed argument was laid open.
Nope. You allow your biases to creep in to your poor interpretations of other people's comments, and then angrily respond to them as such. My initial response was simple, but your strongly held beliefs have clouded your responses.
The "internet" isn't liable, so moderate is in the form of transparent traffic shaping. When disruptions are small, costs are either absorbed in aggregate by infrastructure owners (and user attention) until traffic is literally moderated away with routing.
Maybe so (that sounds believable, anyway). What he's saying is that the other 1% is unmoderated because there's no central authority [1]. The problem here isn't that people will share bad things if you don't stop them, the problem is that you're in a position of being held responsible for something outside your control. If it's illegal, it should be reported (or found by law enforcement whose job it is to enforce the law) and if it's offensive, offer some user-side filtering.
[1] this is starting to change, though - Amazon took Parler offline completely at the hosting level. Although they eventually found another hosting provider, it's not unimaginable that in the near future, service providers will collaborate to moderate the underlying traffic itself.
